The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: MDawg
If you want to make good on your Vow, I am sure you know how to fall on your sword as well as your friend did. Or, just keep talk talk talking until you're able to go back to making minimum wage pushing buttons.
You're the one who gets arrested for what he does in casinos, not me!
False accusation
And goading attempt and call for me to get myself suspended
What do we call people who do that?
Quote: darkozPersonally I suspect a marker scam of some sort.
In fact, when it comes to accusations, you're the one who tosses out accusations of marker fraud. Marker fraud, my a**. You've never had a credit line in a casino your entire life, so how would you know anything about it? You probably didn't even know what a marker was until you read about it in my thread.
Quote: MDawg
This is what I am talking about where many of you just hear what you want to hear. I mean here we have DarkO quoting the Wizard's general statistics as proof that no one could ever win on any game with a house edge. Do you realize how absurd you sound? Go out and live life for yourself, son (well, actually I should say, dad, in that you're older than I am), but still, you get the message.
You have insulted the Wizard with this post imo
You have insulted his mathematical work and objectives with this website
You insult indirectly every forum member who comes here for accurate information and for the knowledge the Wizard imparts by impugning his work.
Aside from boasting and insulting the membership I don't understand your reason for being here
Is this an insult?
Quote: darkozPersonally I suspect a marker scam of some sort.
Quote: darkozgoading attempt and call for me to get myself suspended
YeGods man, you're too much. You called for your own suspension! but didn't follow through on it.
Quote: MDawgYou have a strange definition of "insulting."
Is this an insult?
Nope, that's a statement of a suspicion. Which means I do not claim it to be an absolute fact
You however have claimed I have been arrested inside casinos and that I run from the law.
Casino security is not the law so I will play games with them all day long
No police officer or law officer has ever arrested me for a crime related to what I do. And the one and only time a false accusation of something I didn't do went to court it was thrown out and in fact erased from the record as if it never existed.
Even that doesn't count as an arrest. It was just a summons for trespassing (which again I wasn't)
My other court appearances have been me as plaintiff suing the casinos
I will give you one piece of free legal advice though. If you go through the entire process, you may get that arrest record updated to a record of a "detention only" assuming you were in fact exculpated.
In the U.S., nothing, with rare exceptions, is ever removed from records - rather, additional entries are simply made. The record (and fact) of your arrests remain, pal.
Quote: MDawgWhen you are handed one of those misdemeanor citations, that is an arrest. Even if you are exonerated, the arrest remains on your record.
I will give you one piece of free legal advice though. If you go through the entire process, you may get that arrest record changed to a record of a "detention only."
In the U.S., nothing is ever removed from records - rather, additional entries are simply made. The record of your arrests remain, pal.
Well false arrest. That is something we all face. Nothing can be done about someone making a false accusation.
I can tell you this. I have paperwork that says it must be expunged from all records. It's a directive of the court. It further states that if the record of the arrest is for some reason not expunged it cannot be used in any way shape or form and must be ignored
Expungement is for people who are CONVICTED and then go back to get it "removed" - plus, it doesn't really get removed, it is just a further entry. Expungement is a legal fiction.
OJ still has his arrest record on his record, and so do you.
Enough free legal advice for the day.
Quote: MDawgMeantime I'll be doing everything above board
MDawg has quoted the original challenge exactly as he posted it here over 2 months ago.
There's nothing unreasonable about the challenge, and it's easily understood...it is what it is.
In response, we find detractors' fantasies of what they imagine the challenge is "like"...it's like playing golf against Tiger Woods, or like claims of humans flapping arms to fly, or perpetual motion machines, or cars powered by candy, etc.
Are some of MDawg's followers trying to discourage Axel from participating?
Consider that it was Axel who originally expressed his willingness, his happiness to participate,
when he wrote the following on 03-25-2020...
"I still think you're up to something self-serving I just don't know what it is (I'm not claiming it's nefarious). However, I would be more than happy for you to prove me wrong. Once they open up the casinos again, let's set this s*** up with Mike and another member. Oh for f***s sake invite me and Mike."
It's clear the event that Axel requested MDawg to set up was the challenge posted on Jan 6, 2020.
It's not yet clear that when MDawg does set it up, if "more than happy" Axel intends to show up.
Quote: MDawgThe record is there. You should go in and try to get it changed to show a detention only or have the record sealed (depending on the laws in your state), but you'd have to go back to court within a certain period of time and go through a whole new sort of "mini-trial" - this one to prove factual, not just legal, innocence. It's not easy to do and most people don't bother.
Expungement is for people who are CONVICTED and then go back to get it "removed" - plus, it doesn't really get removed, it is just a further entry. Expungement is a legal fiction.
OJ still has his arrest record on his record, and so do you.
Enough free legal advice for the day.
Why would I do all that for a thrown out trespassing charge
And I don't even do any criminal acts with my AP. I am not running from the law
I just wanted to set the record straight on what the wager is and has always been before it gets "whispered" on down the line too much, and misquoted.
Coach, I suppose I should repost:
As far as what the wager is, I posted it months ago, here
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/trip-reports/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/80/#post753072
and it has never changed, other than, the one concession I made for Axel after Michael99000 whiffed, is that I agree to play baccarat only. The only monies being risked are our respective bankrolls. If he is able to get some of you to bet on the outcome that is his affair, but unless he’s willing to risk his money with the only reward being what he claims he always wins whenever he plays, the same way I claim that I always win, then he’s not up to snuff to compete against MDawg. As I’ve said clearly more than once, I’m not giving him a penny (as I wrote months ago, "there is no side bet") all he’ll get out of this is ALLL that MONEY he CLAIMS he wins EVERY time he walks into a casino.
If you whisper something in someone’s ear and say, PASS IT ON, by the time it’s arrived at the fourth or fifth (let alone the tenth or twentieth) person the story is already something entirely different. Lest that happen here, I post the original wager, never modified. If Axel wants to create his own terms and conditions to get out of showing up, that’s on him. My experience has proven that it’s worth my time and money to show up at a casino and play. Has his experience demonstrated that it is worth his? if not, then he should leave the winning, to MDawg alone.
I don't know who the original person is that attempted to dox me. I'm not saying it was MDawg. I have no clue, however, I do think he had already gotten in trouble for doing something similar on this forum. If I recall correctly, on another forum he did continually repeat what the original person incorrectly put out there. Perhaps, I should go back and re-read everything again.Quote: Marcusclark66Axelwolf,
He attempted to dox you and divulge what he thought was a current address for you and started to give personal information about yourself that was overlooked.
Talk about privacy concrrns.
Oh yes I am sorry and I apologize for posting the names of those surveillance and investigation casino personnel, that are close professional acquaintances of mine. I should not have done that and I appreciate the wizard to delete those names. I was not familiar with the rules.
Keep the facts the facts. Thank you.
Kudos for the apology.
Simulations have proven this out on craps with a million rolls (a career). Considering the lowest house edge 1.36% and it can be done....the same would apply to baccarat ~1% house edge.
The percentage of those accomplishing this is likely less than 2% and it requires absolute lowest house edge wagering and nothing more...but it can be done.
Impossible for the actual player to prove he’s the guy....but computer simulation players...yes. It can be shown to be true.
Quote: coachbellyMDawg has quoted the original challenge exactly as he posted it here over 2 months ago.
Fair enough. So we all have been wasting our electron breath here. There is a 0% chance any advantage player would be willing to sit at a baccarat table with $50,000 to attempt to get luckier than MDawg. Why would that advantage player just throw their own money away? However, I, and others, have offered to just watch Mdawg play. It would at least answer the question as to whether he is in fact a real high limit player. If it were me he allowed, I would give him my full name and he could google me to find out I’m exactly who I say I am, a moderately well known anesthesiologist from Buffalo. Or he could of course use Wizard.
I of course know if he won during our time together I’d wouldn’t prove anything. Same if he lost. Frankly, for me, a consummate low roller, I’d love to see someone I know betting thousands per hand.
I do like MDawg’s writing style and always find his trip reports a good read.
Based on this, I think anyway I don't know for sure what the guy was thinking, anyway, someone at another forum started tossing around that I had been on 20 trips in the past couple years. I suppose he was considering each stay at each casino like a separate trip? Then he went on to claim that there was a twenty MILLION to one chance that I could have won on each trip. I told him that his calculation was ridiculously wrong.
Your calculation above would make my 2018 - 2020 win far more likely, as I certainly did not play a million hands over the past couple years. Assuming no other strategy and that I have nothing that makes my play advantage, based on what you say the chance of winding up ahead over a million hands of Baccarat is 3% or 4% so (given 2% probability on the higher house advantage craps), then what would the chance be of winding up ahead over the course of just 8 trips? (However, I did play BJ during the past two years also not just Baccarat.)
Soopoo, please give it a rest for now. That Axel and I are discussing this means that he understands what the terms are. And anyway, what is an advantage player? One who WINS right? So if he wins he should be willing to risk his money to gamble. If not, then he's not an advantage player - he's nothing, not even a casino gambler, which, when I first encountered him online is what I accused him of being - someone who stays at home and never goes to casinos. Apparently, I was wrong, he does go to casinos and he does gamble. If so, he should be willing to play alongside me and win more than I, at the game of his choice.
Quote: TDVegas
The percentage of those accomplishing this is likely less than 2%
You're off by orders of magnitude there ...
Back then, I never increased my lines.
What are the odds that they ever got their money back from me? I woulda had to get wiped out straight $20K loss 25 times in a row. Didn't happen. They never did get their money back from me, and I had other low six figure wins after that one, too. Back then I didn't win every trip, probably because I was swinging so hard I'd strike out some, but when I did lose the losses were small compared to the wins.
Quote: SOOPOOThere is a 0% chance any advantage player would be willing to sit at a baccarat table with $50,000 to attempt to get luckier than MDawg.
The challenger doesn't have to play baccarat.
This has been pointed out many times over.
Soopoo! if I allow you to watch me someday it will be based on your medical! degree. What was your VERBAL SAT score? Just breaking your balls a little my friend.
Quote: MDawgGoing back to when MDawg started posted at this forum, but especially during the course of this particular Adventures thread there have been some rather odd attempts to derail my story – a sock puppet coming in pretending to be me, trying to get me suspended (which actually worked – for a few days), other obvious socks coming in and posting snubs that whoever posted was obviously afraid to post under his real forum username, and then of course this most recent incident.
Certainly if anyone’s integrity is impugned that person is going to defend the truth to the nth degree, which is why I fight back when my veracity is questioned, but perhaps all of us should step back a little and accept that nothing anyone says (versus “sticks and stones”) should affect any of us enough to get so bent out of shape. I mean come on, when anyone posts something like this does it make the target look bad, or the person hurling the insult?
Why get so incensed over MDawg?
High level action at a gaming table – worth taking seriously! Anything that doesn’t affect you directly – not worth raising your blood pressure over!
Mdawg: Just a few points from the above.
Your suspension over the sock and subsequent investigation did NOT "work", as you were still serving out a 2 month Martingaled suspension. Effect to you: exactly zero time. No acknowledgement from you, either, that there were other issues underlying what got posted publicly, or the effort we made to resolve them in your favor.
You post things that offend a group of people who understand the math that refutes your claims, things that offend people who see women as people, not objects, and things that offend people who live in the real gambling world and have every reason to doubt the veracity of your "Adventures" as written .
You do this on purpose, as the aggregate of your posts clearly state, including this one. In (not-so) short, your posts are provocative and baiting to a forum dedicated to honest and transparent gaming, finding the best mathematical gaming choices, and developing new games. Your posts are a disservice to the general reader looking for useful advice, on one of the most discerning and reputable gaming advice sites anywhere.
This particular post, suggesting everyone else here should (paraphrasing) "Take a chill pill" is BEYOND hypocritical and disingenuous. You claim you're justified in "fighting back" when you get pushback, but cause problems for anyone who does argue with your posts.
Forum members in general: I am not defending PGs post. It was clearly suspension-worthy, and meant to be. I am, however, defending your right (and near-obligation) to debunk nonsense regardless of the author.
Back to Mdawg: This forum and your apparent purposes in continuing this thread will always be antithetical.
Quote: beachbumbabsand things that offend people who live in the real gambling world
Right I'm just risking Disneyland dollars and not real money every time I pull a marker....
Quote: MDawgAs long as you are here in my thread, I wanted to ask you, I believe you posted someplace that Wynn/Encore and Station Casinos (Palms) are reopening May 1st, or posted that they intend to open May 1st? Is that confirmed? Link? Thanks!
It was an LVRJ web article from a couple days ago. Not finding it now. Perhaps it got removed or overridden by Governor Siselak. Wynn had announced it Wednesday morning, then an hour later Stations joined in. Haven't seen any further casinos announce openings, or any widespread (secondary) coverage of that announcement.
Quote: MDawg
Soopoo, please give it a rest for now. That Axel and I are discussing this means that he understands what the terms are. And anyway, what is an advantage player? One who WINS right? So if he wins he should be willing to risk his money to gamble. If not, then he's not an advantage player - he's nothing, not even a casino gambler, which, when I first encountered him online is what I accused him of being - someone who stays at home and never goes to casinos. Apparently, I was wrong, he does go to casinos and he does gamble. If so, he should be willing to play alongside me and win more than I, at the game of his choice.
An advantage player is NOT someone who wins. An advantage player is someone who plays at an advantage. All it means is that the odds are in the player's favor, not the casinos. It means the expected value of the wager is positive, but variance can cause the player to lose. To make it simple, if I find a baccarat game where they do not take a 5% commission on banker by accident, as an advantage player I'd bet banker every hand. There can certainly be a sequence of 100 hands where I'd be down, but I would have been at an advantage on every single bet.
I've watched Axel do advantage plays. The majority involve machines.
As I've mentioned before, I've got nothing but time, so I won't be giving it a rest. I'll try and be respectful and polite in all my posts.
Quote: SOOPOOI've got nothing but time
Isn't that a Hank Williams, Sr. song? A great one! at that.
Well anyway, it seems that Axel and I have decided to continue this discussion in private, as we get closer to the date of its actually happening.
But the wager has never changed. If someone claims that MDawg can't win, he'll have to back it up by proving that he CAN win, in order to win the wager. That's the nature of the wager. Of course, he might be able to get some of youse to bet on him or on me, and that might earn him extra money, but I am not giving him a penny. If all of you are so certain that I cannot win, then you should all be willing to bet against me, and somewhere within all those bets I'd imagine that Axel will somehow figure out a way to benefit himself - in addition to all the money he would have to win in order to beat me in the first place.
I'm not concerned as it will be business as usual for me - winning! Like I said, two years ago, resuming after such a long break, I might not have been so confident. But today, tried and proven, I am!
Quote: sabreYou're off by orders of magnitude there ...
Now that I’m thinking...maybe ~5% was the number?
2-3% was utilizing a place 6 or 8 only.
Someone mentioned 12% which was pretty much dismissed.
The point was there can be long term winners. And who is this dicesitter guy who keeps insisting it cannot be?? Even after he’s been shown the data!!
Found this thread on the subject.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/26196-playing-tough-what-are-your-lifetime-chances/
Which is the whole point of everything I have mentioned here from Day One. It's one thing to say that something might not happen. Another to say that it cannot or did not. In my case, the winning already has happened, so it is absurd to argue against it. But I would like to know more about what % then, "could" have won at Bacc. over 8 trips, if 7% "could" have won over a million Bacc. hands.
Quote: SOOPOOAn advantage player is NOT someone who wins. An advantage player is someone who plays at an advantage. All it means is that the odds are in the player's favor, not the casinos. It means the expected value of the wager is positive, but variance can cause the player to lose.
When the odds are in the casino's favor, can variance cause the casino to lose?
Is there a number of outcomes that must occur such that a player cannot have won overall for that number?
Quote: coachbellyWhen the odds are in the casino's favor, can variance cause the casino to lose?
Of course. Without that possibility....no one would gamble in a casino.
Quote: coachbellyWhen the odds are in the casino's favor, can variance cause the casino to lose?
Absolutely. On table games, the casino loses over 40% of the time when a bet is resolved. At baccarat it's close to 50%
Quote: coachbellyIs there a number of outcomes that must occur such that a player cannot have won overall for that number?
The chance will start to approach zero. At some point before then, alternate explanations become more likely. For example, if I were to flip a coin 100 times and it landed on heads every time, it is most likely that the coin had heads on both sides. Likewise, if someone makes regular trips to the casino over several decades and puts significant amount of money into action each time and ends up winning large amounts overall, it is most likely that they are playing with an advantage.
Quote: TomGif I were to flip a coin 100 times and it landed on heads every time, it is most likely that the coin had heads on both sides.
Considering your scenario...if your examination of the coin showed that it did not have heads on both sides, would you insist that the results did not occur, that they could not have occurred since they were so unlikely?
Quote: coachbellyConsidering your scenario...if your examination of the coin showed that it did not have heads on both sides, would you insist that the results did not occur, that they could not have occurred since they were so unlikely?
If someone posted on an internet message board that they’d flipped a fair coin 100 times and that it landed on heads every time , and nobody else was there to witness it.. no I would not believe them.
Quote: coachbellyConsidering your scenario...if your examination of the coin showed that it did not have heads on both sides, would you insist that the results did not occur, that they could not have occurred since they were so unlikely?
Given the chance that a fair coin lands heads 100 times in a row is more than 10^30, I would still believe in some sort of trickery. As would most everyone else. Like if a magician sawed a woman in half and then put her back together no one would insist that such a result really did occur by chance alone.
To give an example of how large that number is, it's more than the number of stars in the universe*. In fact, we would need about one billion universes with the same amount of stars that we have to get to 10^30.
if we were to flip a coin that many times, and each flip lasted one second, and we started at the beginning of time**, we would not even be close. We would need to do that another 10 trillion times to get to 10^30.
*based on a google search for "how many stars are there?"
**based on a google search for "the beginning of time"
Quote: michael99000If someone posted on an internet message board that they’d flipped a fair coin 100 times and that it landed on heads every time , and nobody else was there to witness it.. no I would not believe them.
What about if there were witnesses, would you believe it then?
Quote: TomGI would still believe in some sort of trickery.
Is there a mathematical point at which you will not accept that a witnessed event occurred...without trickery?
How many heads in a row make the results unbelievable?
Quote: coachbellyWhat about if there were witnesses, would you believe it then?
Depends on who the witnesses were.
Quote: coachbellyIs there a mathematical point at which you will not accept that a witnessed event occurred...without trickery?
How many heads in a row make the results unbelievable?
It's not a matter of weather it occurred or not, it's a matter of what caused it. If I witnessed a coin land on heads 20 times in a row, I would accept that it happened, but strongly believe there was some trickery, such as the chance of landing heads each time was more than 50%. Likewise, if someone goes to the casino regularly for several decades, makes enough bets, and wins a lot of money (which is something I have not only witnessed, but actually participated in), I would believe they were playing with an advantage.
Quote: TomGIf I witnessed a coin land on heads 20 times in a row, I would accept that it happened, but strongly believe there was some trickery
Considering a random event, where you've stipulated that it's occurred without trickery...
is there a point at which an unlikely eye-witnessed result is reported that you will not accept as truthful?
Quote: michael99000Depends on who the witnesses were.
Considering MDawg's baccarat play, do reliable witnesses exist that you would believe?
Quote: MDawgIf all of you are so certain that I cannot win,
Who has said they are certain you will lose on any given session of playing baccarat? Not I! The bet you have proposed with Axel I'd say you have a 47% or so chance of winning more than him, or losing less than him. I'd give him a slight advantage due to knowing 'tournament strategy".
Heck, if you start with a bankroll of $50k and try and win $10k, I'd guess you have a 70% chance of success noting your betting style, tipping habits, etc....
Hoping you and Axel can work something out via pm......
Quote: coachbellyis there a point at which an unlikely eye-witnessed result is reported that you will not accept as truthful?
Obviously. If someone reported that they witnessed the 49ers beat the Chiefs in the Super Bowl this year I would not accept it as truthful, or it was lacking such a significant detail (like it was on a Madden simulation) that their report would not be meaningful.
Quote: coachbellyConsidering your scenario...if your examination of the coin showed that it did not have heads on both sides, would you insist that the results did not occur, that they could not have occurred since they were so unlikely?
It seems like you keep asking this question in slightly different ways. I'll answer this iteration. I am changing the word "could" to "did".
Meaning I can never prove that they "could not occur since they were so unlikely". Just like I can't prove that you aren't a Martian sent to disrupt this board. But the likelihood of 100 heads in a row on a fair coin is less likely than you being a Martian.
So unless you are also willing to ask me to prove you are not a Martian, why are you asking me to prove something even less likely?
Quote: TomGObviously. If someone reported that they witnessed the 49ers beat the Chiefs in the Super Bowl this year I would not accept it as truthful, or it was lacking such a significant detail (like it was on a Madden simulation) that their report would not be meaningful.
I asked about a random event, where you've stipulated that it occurred without trickery.
Your Super Bowl example doesn't apply, what's been reported isn't a result.
Consider a casino-controlled card game as the random event....
is there a point at which an unlikely eye-witnessed result is reported that you will not accept as truthful?
Quote: SOOPOOwhy are you asking me to prove something even less likely?
I haven't asked you to prove anything.
I am asking about what you insist happened...would you insist that a coin-flipping event that you witnessed did not happen?
Could probability override what you actually witnessed?
Quote: coachbellyI haven't asked you to prove anything.
I am asking about what you insist happened...would you insist that a coin-flipping event that you witnessed did not happen?
Could probability override what you actually witnessed?
I wouldn't insist that it didn't happen. But if I witnessed 100 flips in a row to be heads, I would figure something untoward was afoot.
Some possibilities...
1. Two headed coin.
2. Mis-weighted coin
3. Magnetic coin
4. Other sleight of hand I couldn't figure out.
5. Optical illusion I couldn't figure out.
The only thing I would not think of as a possibility is a fair coin was tossed heads 100 times in a row. What is the exact number where I would categorically believe it was subterfuge and not just extreme variance? Not sure. But it is a number far less than 100.
Quote: coachbellyI asked about a random event, where you've stipulated that it occurred without trickery.
Your Super Bowl example doesn't apply.
Consider a casino-controlled card game as the random event....
is there a point at which an unlikely eye-witnessed result is reported that you will not accept as truthful?
Any casino and person involved would want to investigate fully if something against astronomical odds hit.
This is true even just for a large slot jackpot. The odds are against so much that the casino has the machine checked for trickery. It's not enough to say, "hey, you saw the machine say I won a million. You saw it so must be true"
That's why they usually say "subject to verification". Just saying it on the screen isn't even enough
So can't be just visual. Has to be investigated.
Quote: SOOPOOWho has said they are certain you will lose on any given session of playing baccarat? Not I! The bet you have proposed with Axel I'd say you have a 47% or so chance of winning more than him, or losing less than him. I'd give him a slight advantage due to knowing 'tournament strategy".
Heck, if you start with a bankroll of $50k and try and win $10k, I'd guess you have a 70% chance of success noting your betting style, tipping habits, etc....
Hoping you and Axel can work something out via pm......
I don't understand this part about losing less.
So if they both start with $50,000
Then Axel ends with $44,000 and MDaw ends with $45,000 how does both of them simply losing to a negative ev game prove anything.
It doesn't prove any winning system
I would argue that 99.9% of the players inside casinos do that every day, most lose and some more than others
Quote: SOOPOOI wouldn't insist that it didn't happen. But if I witnessed 100 flips in a row to be heads, I would figure something untoward was afoot.
Is there a point at which you would not suspect something untoward happened?
How many heads in a row would shake your confidence that the event was random and happened legitimately and exactly as you witnessed it?
Quote: coachbellyIs there a point at which you would not suspect something untoward happened?
How many heads in a row would shake your confidence that the event was random and happened legitimately and exactly as you witnessed it?
You are going the wrong direction
The more heads in a row the more suspicious you become.
If you sat at a roulette table and it landed on the number 35 sixteen times in a row, are you saying you would be less suspicious something was trickery or more suspicious
